5 ms·

I don't follow your first point, would you mind breaking it down? Governments are scared of a lot of things, but swelling their own ranks by creating more civi

by sparky 17y ago

I don't follow your first point, would you mind breaking it down? Governments are scared of a lot of things, but swelling their own ranks by creating more civil service jobs usually isn't one of them, is it? There is definitely some serious game theory afoot; states have a perverse incentive to not spend on important things, lest they not receive federal money to cover those things. It is similar to the perverse incentive in large companies and government to spend one's entire budget at all costs, lest you get allocated less next time.

dantheman 17y ago
The big problem is that most cities, states, and the US are bankrupt. The amount of money they are in debt is ridiculous and way out of proportion to the services they provide and the taxes that they can collect. For instance the city of cambridge, MA has over 1.2 Billion dollars of debt/unfunded liabilities for 70,000 people. http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/cambridge-massachusetts-opeb-pensions-ratings-opinions-contributors-peter-schweich.html http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/cambridge-massachusetts-ope...
- ajross 17y ago
  I have an idea: how about we give them a big chunk of money? :) Seriously, this point doesn't work. No state is going to turn down a transit project, certainly not because of the operating costs (most of which are funded in these kinds of bills -- it's not a one-time check). And in any case, in most urban environments transit is required to pay its own operating costs. Where do you think that bus fare goes anyway?
  - dantheman 17y ago
    The MBTA is bankrupt; it has over 5 Billion dollars in debt. The transit fare for the subway is the same as NYC but in Boston we don't get 24 hour service, nor the scope of service.
    - ajross 17y ago
      And yet the MBTA employees are being, y'know, paid. It's in debt because of infrastructure investment. And the proposal in the linked article is to subsidize that investment. I don't see how your point does anything but support the linked article.
      - dantheman 17y ago
        The majority of the MBTA budget is paid for by sales taxes. It has $1,037M for operating expenses. Revenue Sources: State Sales Tax $756M Fares $430M Municipal Assessments $143M Parking, Real Estate Tenants, etc. $37.4M Real Estate Sales and Misc. $20.8M Advertising $11.0M Federal government $8.0M Interest $3.8M Utility reimbursement from tenants $2.8M Total $1,413M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Transportation_Authority#Fares_and_fare_collection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Transportatio...
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Fares often pay only a fraction of the cost of mass transit. For example, my local light rail costs about $8/ride. The fare is only $1.90. (Sorry, the source is the dead tree version of one of my local rags.)
    - ajross 17y ago
      Right, because it's including construction and infrastructure costs (the things being subsidized!) in the "net cost" of the ride. The actual operating expenses are almost precisely borne by the fare structure, and in fact many cities have laws to this effect prohibiting them from funding things like salaries for transit companies.
  - roc 17y ago
    There's a huge lag between building transit and it being able to cover its own costs. Truly, it's our zoning laws that have sunk the American city. There are no good transit routes because everyone is living in cul-de-sac neighborhoods a half-mile from one another. There's no mixed-use zoning, so home, work, food, entertainment -- essentially everything -- is miles away from everything else. Thus the routes are intractable to build gradually and a critical mass of ridership disinterested until you have effectively a complete network on offer. Most US cities simply can't afford to run a money-losing transit system for two or three years. Even if you gifted them the money to build it.

by sparky 17y ago

dantheman 17y ago

The big problem is that most cities, states, and the US are bankrupt. The amount of money they are in debt is ridiculous and way out of proportion to the services they provide and the taxes that they can collect. For instance the city of cambridge, MA has over 1.2 Billion dollars of debt/unfunded liabilities for 70,000 people. http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/cambridge-massachusetts-opeb-pensions-ratings-opinions-contributors-peter-schweich.html http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/cambridge-massachusetts-ope...

ajross 17y ago
I have an idea: how about we give them a big chunk of money? :) Seriously, this point doesn't work. No state is going to turn down a transit project, certainly not because of the operating costs (most of which are funded in these kinds of bills -- it's not a one-time check). And in any case, in most urban environments transit is required to pay its own operating costs. Where do you think that bus fare goes anyway?
- dantheman 17y ago
  The MBTA is bankrupt; it has over 5 Billion dollars in debt. The transit fare for the subway is the same as NYC but in Boston we don't get 24 hour service, nor the scope of service.
  - ajross 17y ago
    And yet the MBTA employees are being, y'know, paid. It's in debt because of infrastructure investment. And the proposal in the linked article is to subsidize that investment. I don't see how your point does anything but support the linked article.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      The majority of the MBTA budget is paid for by sales taxes. It has $1,037M for operating expenses. Revenue Sources: State Sales Tax $756M Fares $430M Municipal Assessments $143M Parking, Real Estate Tenants, etc. $37.4M Real Estate Sales and Misc. $20.8M Advertising $11.0M Federal government $8.0M Interest $3.8M Utility reimbursement from tenants $2.8M Total $1,413M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Transportation_Authority#Fares_and_fare_collection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Transportatio...
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Fares often pay only a fraction of the cost of mass transit. For example, my local light rail costs about $8/ride. The fare is only $1.90. (Sorry, the source is the dead tree version of one of my local rags.)
  - ajross 17y ago
    Right, because it's including construction and infrastructure costs (the things being subsidized!) in the "net cost" of the ride. The actual operating expenses are almost precisely borne by the fare structure, and in fact many cities have laws to this effect prohibiting them from funding things like salaries for transit companies.
- roc 17y ago
  There's a huge lag between building transit and it being able to cover its own costs. Truly, it's our zoning laws that have sunk the American city. There are no good transit routes because everyone is living in cul-de-sac neighborhoods a half-mile from one another. There's no mixed-use zoning, so home, work, food, entertainment -- essentially everything -- is miles away from everything else. Thus the routes are intractable to build gradually and a critical mass of ridership disinterested until you have effectively a complete network on offer. Most US cities simply can't afford to run a money-losing transit system for two or three years. Even if you gifted them the money to build it.